It seems to me that Europe has had enough of Donald Trump's foreign policy, and I see its response to Trump's call for European participation in securing the Strait of Hormuz as one reflection of its exasperation.
Consider this: mere hours before their dispute over the strait erupted, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas claimed that the United States seeks to divide Europe. Such candor, or perhaps severity, is unprecedented, and it was voiced by the EU's chief diplomat, not some junior official, and there must be a reason for this - considerations we are not privy to are surely behind it.
Had Kallas been more precise, she would have specified that it is the Trump administration in particular — among all its predecessors — that seeks or pursues such a thing.
There is no smoking gun that proves Kallas's statement is largely accurate, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence. The Trump administration's stance on the Russian-Ukrainian war is one - indeed, the strongest - example.
Since Trump returned to the White House, the president has been more favorable to Moscow than to Kyiv on every occasion that brought the Russian and Ukrainian sides to the negotiating table to end this war that has been raging for over four years now. Every single time, not just on occasion, he has openly shown more sympathy for Russia's position than that of Ukraine.
The Europeans see this as an affront to the entire continent that goes beyond Ukraine, its territory, and its conflict with Russia. They still believe that Russia's war on Ukraine is a war against Europe and that Ukraine is merely the front in which it is being waged. Every European capital has been sure of this from the outset, though this conviction is only ever asserted hesitantly or with restraint.
In truth, Europe's wariness with the United States is not entirely new and predates the Trump administration. However, it only came out into the open during his second term.
If we recall, similar apprehensions briefly arose amid the British referendum on leaving the European Union. The United States was among the most enthusiastic supporters of Brexit, and this signal of the United States' implicit desire to drive a wedge between the British and the Europeans came before Trump's time in office. The EU was undoubtedly stronger with Britain in it, and it has been diminished since Britain's departure.
It is true that a historic bond has linked the two sides of the Atlantic, and that the ocean has been a bridge between the two sides since the Second World War. However, Washington's conception of this bond has always differed from Europe's. Washington has seen itself as the party that speaks for the others: the economic weight of EU member states does not rival that of the US and that alone entitles Uncle Sam to have the final word both east and west of the ocean.
When Trump returned to the White House, he made this assumption explicit, declaring it without shame or hesitation. The Europeans were furious, and, in the president's appeal regarding the Strait of Hormuz, they found the occasion to show their mounting frustration with the American approach.
To the causes of this frustration we may add the Europeans' sense that they have deep history, which the United States emphatically lacks. The latter is about to celebrate its two and a half centuries of history on the fourth of July, the 250th anniversary. Europe, by contrast, sits atop centuries of civilization. If the American president feels let down by European inaction in Hormuz, he should remember that he was the one to start down this road with the Europeans by letting them down in the face of Russia. He is the one who chose not to honor the bond between the two sides of the Atlantic that had been unbroken since the Second World War.
The sense of abandonment has gone so far as to hit countries that have historically been closely aligned to the United States, most notably Britain and Germany, and they too have rebuffed him. Perhaps this is because when he invited the Europeans to help secure Hormuz, he made the demand with condescension and arrogance, not hiding the transactional mentality he refuses to abandon.
Is there anything more transactional than declaring that those who benefit from Hormuz should come and secure it and reopen it to navigation? This kind of political discourse offends European sensibilities, even if they do in fact benefit from keeping it open. The tone that the Americans took in voicing what they expect of the Europeans has backfired. One does not speak to nations, especially nations with deep histories, in this manner. That is why Germany appeared to lose its composure, with its foreign minister declaring that the war on Iran is America's war, not Europe's, and that Trump is the one who started it and who can end it.
As the popular Arab saying goes: if you undermine your relationship with them on Saturday, you will find Sunday waiting for you. That seems to capture the predicament of the American president as he finds himself let down by the Europeans.
